Originally Posted by
Doc Savage
If a motion is poorly drafted in the first place, ostensibly requiring revisions on the fly, then not enough thought and discussion had gone into drafting the motion in the first place, and that argues that a longer period of thoughtful discussion should ensue, not an abbreviated one that could lead to unforeseen consequences.
In addition, this seems to introduce a new way of proponents tweaking motions that seem destined not to pass in order to wear down opposition with specially tailored changes.
The rules regarding discussion periods are there for a reason. No motion is so urgent that it is imperative to pass it hastily.
I share some of your concerns. However, even a well-thought-thru proposal and/or motion cannot be 100% typo-proof. Remember how many typos and necessary corrections FTers spotted with the new TB Guidelines (such as
this &
this), after countless hours of intensive labor and hundreds of discussion posts? Not until
Round Two of the New TB Guidelines was the motion a reality.
I do like the practice of inviting comments on a TB proposal before any motion is made in the private TB Forum, just like what
koko did back in 2008 with the new TB Guidelines. At least FTers wouldn't be surprised what a motion turned out in the end. I have to say I had been surprised at least twice (
linky to one example) in the last couple of years when reading some motions after TBers getting feedback from general members.
I am not dismissing the need to fix typos in TB motions. Nobody is perfect after all. Having said that, rather than working on an amendment process, I rather see formalizing such TB motion-making process first, so we can be more certain no hasty motion is made.
Just my 2 cents.